Suchergebnisse

This Special Issue advances an interpretive research programme into Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) and International Relations by showcasing new work on the study of foreign policy and regional cooperation. This introductory article explains the rationale and contents of the Special Issue in three parts. The opening part explains how the contributions complement the broader study of ideas in FPA and International Relations through a critique of methodological positivism in the social sciences. The second part elaborates the theoretical framework used to cohere the collection, which centres on the study of 'situated agents' who, when confronted with policy dilemmas, draw on inherited traditions to inform their foreign policy practices. This is accompanied by a methods case study centring on David Cameron's European Union referendum strategy, which is used to illustrate the practical ways in which one can conduct interpretivist research into foreign policy. In conclusion, we spell out how the contributors conducted their work to advance the interpretivist research programme.

This paper offers a commentary on critical realism by proponents of an interpretive political science. It does, in part, by responding to McAnulla's suggestion that critical realists might join the conversation, initiated by interpretive political scientists, about the nature of a post-positivist political science. The paper argues that the critical realist concept of "structure" is too vague to be of much use; it needs to be disaggregated into various types of structure, including "tradition", "dilemma", "practice", and "unintended consequence". The paper also suggests that if critical realists are to disaggregate the concept of structure in a post-positivist manner, they need to avoid philosophical pitfalls such as contrasting the ideational with the material, treating social concepts as natural kinds, and adopting naturalist forms of explanation.

This paper has two aims. First, in contrast to the modernist empiricism of mainstream political science, we provide brief introductions to several interpretive approaches to the study of political science and British government and politics: idealism, social humanism, post-structuralism, and ideational institutionalism. Second, we identify the distinctive research agendas that arise from this family of approaches: namely, critique, decentring governance, ethnographic studies of British politics, and policy analysis as storytelling.

An interpretive approach to political science provides accounts of actions and practices that are interpretations of interpretations. We develop this argument using the idea of 'situated agency'. There are many common criticisms of such an approach. This

An interpretive approach to political science provides accounts of actions and practices that are interpretations of interpretations. We develop this argument using the idea of 'situated agency'. There are many common criticisms of such an approach. This

This article asks, 'how do practitioners understand the relationship between the prime minister, ministers and the rest of Westminster arid Whitehall?' We focus on three topics. First, we review tales of a Blair presidency. Second, we explore the governance paradox in which people tell tales of a Blair presidency as they recount stories of British governance that portray it as fragmented with several decision-makers. Finally, we argue that this paradox reveals the distorting influence the Westminster model still exerts on many accounts of British politics. It acts as a smokescreen for the changes in executive politics.

This article asks, 'how do practitioners understand the relationship between the prime minister, ministers and the rest of Westminster arid Whitehall?' We focus on three topics. First, we review tales of a Blair presidency. Second, we explore the governance paradox in which people tell tales of a Blair presidency as they recount stories of British governance that portray it as fragmented with several decision-makers. Finally, we argue that this paradox reveals the distorting influence the Westminster model still exerts on many accounts of British politics. It acts as a smokescreen for the changes in executive politics.

This paper offers a commentary on critical realism by proponents of an interpretive political science. It does, in part, by responding to McAnulla's suggestion that critical realists might join the conversation, initiated by interpretive political scientists, about the nature of a post-positivist political science. The paper argues that the critical realist concept of "structure" is too vague to be of much use; it needs to be disaggregated into various types of structure, including "tradition", "dilemma", "practice", and "unintended consequence". The paper also suggests that if critical realists are to disaggregate the concept of structure in a post-positivist manner, they need to avoid philosophical pitfalls such as contrasting the ideational with the material, treating social concepts as natural kinds, and adopting naturalist forms of explanation.

This paper has two aims. First, in contrast to the modernist empiricism of mainstream political science, we provide brief introductions to several interpretive approaches to the study of political science and British government and politics: idealism, social humanism, post-structuralism, and ideational institutionalism. Second, we identify the distinctive research agendas that arise from this family of approaches: namely, critique, decentring governance, ethnographic studies of British politics, and policy analysis as storytelling.